This ABC Sceince article is making the claim that “China is installing the wind and solar equivalent of five large nuclear power stations per week”. That drew my attention because there obviously is no solar and wind “equivalent” to nuclear (one is intermittent and the other dispatchable, therefore having a very different capacity factor) and I think that the comparison between the two countries is also flawed.
The article portrayed China as some kind of guide country on the installation of new renewable capacity and the gist of the article is that Australia should learn from China and follow in its footsteps. Some of the claims being made:
- China is installing record amounts of solar and wind, while scaling back once-ambitious plans for nuclear
- China may meet its end-of-2030 target by the end of this month, while Australia is falling behind its renewables installation targets
- Energy experts are looking to China (the world’s largest emitter and once a climate villain) for lessons on how to rapidly decarbonize
- They’re installing 1GW per month of pumped hydro storage, while Australia is struggling to build the 2GW Snowy 2.0 in 10 years
- A recent drop in emissions (the first since relaxing COVID-19 restrictions), combined with the decarbonisation of the power grid, may mean the country’s emissions have peaked.
It is a long time that I looked into the China energy data, so I wondered how those numbers evolved and how both countries would compare when I put them next to each other. I would be surprised when China would come out better.
Let’s first start with the numbers. China installs 10 GW of solar and wind capacity every two weeks, that is 5 GW per week as mentioned in the title of the article. This solar and wind capacity of 5 GW equates to a capacity of five nuclear power plants of 1 GW. That is what this “five large nuclear power stations per week” comes from.
That is misleading because solar and wind are intermittent while nuclear is dispatchable and therefore have a different capacity factor. To the credit of ABC Science, they acknowledged this in the article (although they buried this clarification much further in the article). There, they explain what a capacity factor is and state that renewables have a capacity factor of about 25% while the capacity factor of nuclear can be as high as 90%, therefore the output of this “equivalent” of 5 nuclear plants would be closer to that of just 1 large nuclear plant. I guess the calculation goes like this: 25 / 90 x 5 = 1.39 large nuclear power stations.
Looking at BP data from 2023, that might already be an exaggeration of the capacity factor of Chinese solar and wind. In 2023, solar had a capacity factor of almost 11% and wind almost 23%, so the combined capacity factor will be much less than 25% (it is almost 16%).
Then another admission follows (my emphasis):
Somewhat counterintuitively, China has built dozens of coal-fired power stations alongside its renewable energy zones, to maintain the pace of its clean energy transition.
Building coal plants “to maintain the pace of its clean energy transition”? Orwell would be proud. Also, “dozens”? That is deliciously vague. Why not a clear number like was done with new solar and wind capacity? That made me wonder how much coal capacity is build compared to solar and wind capacity? Looking at the new coal fired power stations in 2023, the newly build capacity in China is 47,444 MW (= 47.44 GW), a huge increase compared to the two previous years:
47.4 GW/year divided by 52 is 0.9 GW/week. That is the capacity of, ahem, one large nuclear power plant 
That is less than the new capacity of solar and wind, but it is still a significant amount.
Let’s now try to figure out how far behind Australia is and what the Australians could learn from China. The article was about electricity generation, so I went to the World In Data China data, straight to the chapter on electricity.
This is the evolution of the share of fossil fuel in electricity generation:
China’s share of fossil fuel in electricity generation is at 64,7% while Australia does slightly better with 63.9%. The trajectory is also a bit different. Australia had a higher share than China, but there was a sharp turn in 2018 which didn’t happen in China, therefore surpassing China in 2023.
What about low-carbon sources (solar, wind, hydro, nuclear,…)? The article mentions that Australia struggles with hydro and it also doesn’t have nuclear. China does have nuclear and according to the article, the Chinese are churning out pumped hydro installations. So, certainly the Chinese will have the advantage here?
Alas:
It is Australia again that, despite being in the disadvantage of having problems adding hydro to the mix and in the absence of nuclear, is surpassing China. There was also an steeper increase since 2018, therefore surpassing China in 2023.
According to the article, the Chinese are building solar and wind installation at a rapid pace, teaching Australia (and the rest of the world) a lesson. Does that somehow show in the data?
Nope:
Again, Australia takes the lead. Starting from 2018, there is a steep increase of the share of renewables and Australia surpassed China in 2021.
Share of a certain source doesn’t say everything. This is the comparison electricity production by source of China compared to Australia:
Production of electricity strongly increases in China and slightly increases/stabilizes in Australia. Although coal has a decreasing share in electricity production, in absolute terms, coal is still strongly on the rise in China. In Australia, coal use is on its way back.
The article is about electricity, but decarbonizing the energy of a country is more than just decarbonizing electricity. For example, coal is not only used for generating electricity, but also in the industry and for heating. Let’s look at how energy in general is doing. This is the energy consumption by source:
Again, coal use is on the rise in China and on a decrease in Australia.
This is how consumption of energy is changing compared to the previous year (2023 vs 2022):
By far the biggest risers are coal and oil, followed by solar and wind. Surprisingly, the biggest descender is hydro.
Compare this to the change in Australia:
Although oil is het biggest riser, it is closely followed by solar and later also wind. Coal is among the descenders, but it is gas that is the strongest descender.
What about this “recent” drop in emissions? Is that visible in the annual emission data from World in Data?
Again nope. China’s emissions are still going up. This is only until 2022, but the BP Statistical Review of World Energy gives in its Emission from Energy table a value for 2023 that is higher than 2022.
That “recent” drop in emissions is most likely somewhere in this year? I heard the “this may mean the country’s emissions have peaked” story before and that was only a temporary slowdown. My guess is that this is going to be the same now. If there currently is a drop in emissions, then it is my guess that it is caused by the property crisis China is experiencing now which has serious repercussions for the economy (the property market makes up a third of its economic output). Once this crisis is dealt with, emissions will most likely rise again.
What about Australia:
Australia’s emissions are stable or decreasing since 2010. Also here, the data goes until 2022, but the 2023 datapoint in the BP data is lower than 2022.
Basically, I fail to see what China is supposed to teach Australia. Whether one understand “decarbonizing” as cutting emissions or decreasing the share of fossil fuels, it is clearly Australia that is leading, not China.
Although China is behind Australia, China apparently already met its 2030 goal by now, while Australia is behind in meeting its 2030 goals. To me, that means that China’s goal was set much lower than that of Australia and then it is of course easier to meet it. That China already met its 2030 goal is therefore not evidence that China is ahead of the game, it just means that their bar is set lower.
I think it is China that could learn a thing or two from Australia regarding decarbonization, not the other way around. If Australia really wants to follow in the footsteps of guide country China, it could maybe start lowering its 2030 goals and start churning out coal power plants, just to keep the pace of its clean energy transition of course. Then Australia would in no time meet its 2030 goal, just as its shining example China did.
via Trust, yet verify
July 31, 2024 at 04:00PM
Iowa Climate Science Education 